By Josh Faber ’12, Commentary Editor

In our exceptionally competitive society, thousands of people are accepted to college, obtain jobs and win promotions on a daily basis. They are chosen through methods containing innumerable criteria ranging from intelligence to dedication to affability. Despite the differences between each variable, every one shares the same objective- choose the one person who can best fulfill the available slot.

Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action does not just look at the color of a person’s skin. Instead, admissions departments look at the associated benefits that are tied to race. By associating certain experiences, values and perspectives with a group of people, admissions officers can better understand what an applicant has to offer.

In essence, affirmative action is just another factor for determining the contributions an applicant can make to an institution. While there are millions of smart, personable people out there, everyone has different experiences which can be shared and learned from at an institution. It is undeniable that these experiences are rooted in upbringing which, in turn, is highly correlated to race.

To ignore the ironclad benefits offered by diversity would represent a missed opportunity to society as a whole. Even so, affirmative action has unjustly acquired a racist label when, in fact, it is a policy directed towards equal opportunity and experiential learning.

Newark Academy’s approach to affirmative action epitomizes this archetype by creating an ideal modus operandi. According to Mr. Taylor, head of Newark Academy admissions, the school is “race blind”, meaning no one will be rejected based on the color of their skin. However, race can enhance a student’s application. With this policy, Newark Academy proves that affirmative action does not have to function as the discriminatory demon that it is made out to be. Rather, racial considerations can improve the quality of everyone’s education while maintaining equality.

The most pertinent information that must be understood is the intrinsic benefit of race on a school community. Mr. Taylor addressed this from two angles. He began by saying, “race can be valuable on its own since it is indicative of a unique cultural background”. In other words, students with different backgrounds bring an influx of perspectives and values into the school that everyone can learn from.

Mr. Taylor followed up by making the very broad (and very accurate) statement that “no kid wants to walk into a building and feel uncomfortable”. In elementary school, I was the only Jew in a classroom of two-dozen Christians. While coming to Newark Academy has solved that situation, NA is not perfect.

Statistically, there is only one black male in the freshman class. While that may not bother him, my minority status was awkward for me and could be for anyone else. Without question, an aura of racial heterogeneity at NA can only serve to attract bright, young students interested in diverse communities where they will not feel underrepresented.

Although race can “give you a leg up” according to the admissions department, other safeguards besides the race blind policy prevent real discrimination. For example, there is “an unofficial academic standard” that every student must meet to gain admittance. Race may distinguish two similar applicants but it would never undercut the intellectual tenacity of the school.

Affirmative action is, admittedly, based upon the imperfect science of correlation. To compensate for this, the admissions department rightfully assures that race can only play the smallest role in student evaluations by applying a deluge of other major and minor determinants. The most important points that Mr. Taylor brought up in his interview (besides intellect and test scores) were “socioeconomic and geographic circumstances”.

The justification for these standards lay in a comparison of a private school student and an economically underprivileged student from Newark. In a situation where these candidates were equal in every other way, the Newark student would have an advantage. After all, a student with a weaker education but high scores indicates the raw intelligence and commitment that Newark Academy strives to hone.

Many find it unfair to discriminate based on the race that one is born with because it lies out of an applicant’s control. However, few would reject the utility of considering economics and geography as valid factors for admission, although these factors are generally not under an applicant’s control either.

With all of these ideas in mind I asked Mr. Taylor how NA’s affirmative action policies would change if the color of everyone’s skin were reversed. “Well” he said, “then I’d be looking for the white kids”.